Cold and Cruel in Sonoma County

The National Center on Lesbian Rights points to a civil rights suit 77-year-old Clay Greene has filed against Sonoma County, California. According to the suit, when Harold, Greene's partner of 20 years, fell ill, the county refused to let Greene visit him in the hospital, despite the couple's meticulous efforts to name one another in their wills, powers of attorney, and medical directive documents. The county then went to court to argue that the local government should be given control of Harold's finances, which for 20 years had also been Greene's. (The county referred to Greene as a "roommate.")

Despite an unfavorable ruling, the county apparently auctioned off the couple's assets anyway. According to the lawsuit, the county then terminated the couple's lease, removed Greene from his home, and confined him to a nursing home against his will. Greene's partner died three months later. The two weren't allowed to meet during that three months. Greene has since been released from the nursing home, but says he has nothing left. The county took everything he has.

This of course is only one half of a lawsuit. But unless the claims that Greene and his partner had all their legal work in order are false—and that seems like something that would be too easy to prove for Greene's attorney to have exaggerated—Sonoma County's actions here are unspeakably cruel.

The county's treatment of Greene and his partner is being portrayed in the blogosphere as anti-gay bigotry, and that may well be true. But it also may be just another example of government abusing the elderly to get its hands on their stuff.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

No. The argument was that there were already policy and legal safeguards about visitations. Property should be even better protected against random county seizure. If these facts are close to correct, what the county did was illegal before the executive order, and has nothing to do with it.

I don’t think that any libertarian would say that simply because you have a law about something, that the law is always followed. And they generally wouldn’t say that if you have one law that’s being ignored, passing another law to be ignored will solve the problem.

A lot of people (well, me) said that Obama’s diktat added nothing to existing law.

You will note that what happened here was already illegal. If, in fact, Harold held Greene’s financial and medical power of attorney, then the county (please note, an instrument of the state, not a private organization) broke the law by denying the authority of valid documents.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Also shadow_man, as a fellow gay and a libertarian, knock it off with the bajillion preachy posts!

No, I was making a bad joke in pseudo-naivite. But it still would be better to name it “the Lesbian center on rights” as any lesbian rights which exist ought to coincide with human rights that everyone should have.

No, it wouldn’t have. The county already violated state law by doing what it did.

Its not even clear, yet, that any federal law has changed. I believe Obama told CMS to write rules, which haven’t been promulgated yet. The legal authority for those rules, of course, is not something that Obama and CMS are likely to trouble themselves about.

maybe in another state where visitation rights aren’t given to partners who are not recognized by the state… but in California? all he should’ve had to say was “That’s my partner in there” and everyone should’ve backed off.

California doesn’t have gay marriage (well, except for the ones performed in 2008), but it DOES recognise domestic partnerships… even if they didn’t have paperwork, the hospital should’ve allowed visitation.

and the county?? I’m sorry, if you enter the house of a couple who has been together 20 years… you KNOW they aren’t ‘roommates’!

the county was wrong… it doesn’t even matter if there was no legal paperwork. the county was wrong.

Don’t you think that having domestic partners have visitation rights by default, rather than requiring a rats nest of legal documents, makes it less likely to happen? If you need need to go through meticulous effort to do what everyone else gets by default, it’s more likely the exception gets screwed over.

No, it wouldn’t have. The county already violated state law by doing what it did.

In fact, the California Supreme Court’s ruling in In Re Marriage Cases implies that these actions are unconstitutional. While Section 7.5 of Article 1 defines marriage, it does not affect other state rights enjoyed by same-sex couples.

It is also an expected outgrowth of the whole asset forfeiture thing. If the government can take your stuff without charging you with a crime, it’s not much of a stretch to take your stuff because they say you can’t manage it yourself.

An old man who’s lost everything he owns and whose partner is also gone? Sounds like there’s a possible dramatic ending to the story.

This really has nothing to do with homosexuality. They could have been an unmarried straight couple and the country would have still done exactly what they did. If it were about picking on gay people, we might have some hope of fixing the problem. Instead, the cause is the fact that many government officials are just unimaginably evil and cruel. And that is a much harder thing to fix.

If they had been a married straight couple, they would have been allowed hospital visitation, and the whole series of events following that might well have been averted. So it is a gay rights thing, in addition to being a gross misuse of power thing.

If they had been an unmarried straight couple, the same thing would have happened. And it would have been just as outrageous. Even if we had gay marriage, it would have solved the problem. What if these guys didn’t want to get married, would that make it okay for the county to do what it did? Hell no. You could say it is about the rights of unmarried partners. But, I don’t see how you can say that the lack of gay marriage is the cause here.

Besides the fact that your trolling is obvious, it is also obvious this was done solely because the couple was gay. Gay people deserve to get married like straight couples so things like this would be virtually eliminated.

And the difference between a married couple and a gay couple, is that straight couple have that opportunity to get married and have those benefits in all of the USA. Gays don’t. That’s the difference. Sure it may happen to a few straight couples (bad practices happen everywhere), but that is far more common for majority of gays simply for the fact they cannot get married and reap those same benefits. That is the injustice that will eventually fall, just like the ban on interracial marriage.

Just because they are Democrat does not mean they support gay marriage, and vice-versa. After everything that happened, it is clear that this was due solely to their sexual orientation. Sell of their stuff? Don’t let them visit a sick partner? All the other things? It’s not rocket science.

We did, but you’re succeeding in creating a false equivalency between the two situations. The fact that it happened to a straight couple once does not mean that their treatment was unrelated to their homosexuality.

This has everything to do with gay rights AND elderly abuse. We don’t know for sure if they wanted to get married but with all the “efforts to name one another in their wills, powers of attorney, and medical directive documents,” sure does sound like a marriage would have been a lot easier. Unfortunately, they DON’T get the option. The Kidds case is clearly abuse by the state but I’d still recommend getting a marriage license to protect your assets. Also, unmarried straight couples are not the same as gay couples. Unmarried straight couples can decide to get married. Gay couples can’t even think about it. Just cross your fingers and hope all your legal documents and fees paid will stand up to the courts like a marriage license.

But, of course, anybody who doesn’t consider the government to be the absolute paragon of fairness and justice is just insane, right? Come on statists, tell us again how “crazy” it is to think the the government would fuck over its citizens.

This situation is precisely made for a Sonoma County LP to be raising all kinds of hell – from trying to get the State AG to intervene, to hiring a lawyer to get Greene’s property back, to organizing a march through the Plaza to stick the Bear Flag Republic flag up someone’s arse.

To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

Thats why Jesus never mentions it as well. There is nothing immoral, wrong, or sinful about being gay. Jesus, however, clearly states he HATES hypocrites. If you preach goodness, then promote hate and twist the words of the Bible, you are a hypocrite, and will be judged and sent to hell. Homosexuals will not go to hell, hypocrites will.

This is very similar to the religious bigots of the past, where they took Bible passages to condone slavery, keep women down, and used Bible passages to claim blacks as curses who should be enslaved by the white man. People used God to claim that blacks marrying whites was unnatural, and not of God’s will.

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Also, since you referenced Leviticus, i got 10 other questions to ask you.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than murder. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Oh look at this. Another verse you pulled out of context while ignoring the rest of Leviticus. Let us examine that line in context.

Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death.”

Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.

The Hebrew word “toevah” was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. “Toevah” has been translated in our Bibles as “abomination” or “detestable”. The “toevah” was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. “Toevah” refers to things that were ritually unclean – like eating pork.

It is significant that another Hebrew word, “zimah,” also translated “abomination,” which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.

It is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament. That’s because they aren’t talking about sexual orientation, they are talking about idolatrous practices.

For those of you claiming homosexuality is a “lifestyle”, that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don’t choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. “Nurture” may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that: “It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person’s sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association.”

I’m an atheist and I don’t have anything against gays, but the Torah clearly states that gay sex is an abomination. It is listed along with incest, bestiality, and having sex with your wife’s mother as offences punishable by death.

It’s pretty obvious you didn’t read my links or posts. Let us examine “abomination” used in Leviticus, and you will clearly see that homosexuality is not condemned, rather idolatry and fertility rituals were condemned.

Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death.”

Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.

The Hebrew word “toevah” was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. “Toevah” has been translated in our Bibles as “abomination” or “detestable”. The “toevah” was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. “Toevah” refers to things that were ritually unclean – like eating pork.

It is significant that another Hebrew word, “zimah,” also translated “abomination,” which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.

It is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament. That’s because they aren’t talking about sexual orientation, they are talking about idolatrous practices.

Since you mentioned the old testament as well, here are 10 questions to think about in regards to it:

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than murder. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don’t feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren’t human.

“I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if “Gays” have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate “(Legal Document)” of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. “

Michael: Oh really? Then why did we ever bother eliminating separate fountains for blacks, separate schools, etc? Oh thats right! History shows us that separate is not equal. This is why racists are compared to homophobes. The same arguments. The same ideas. The same bigotry and discrimination.

Gays are being beaten, shot at, sent to the hospital, killed. In the Middle East, they are killing gays among other groups out of hatred. Is this what we want America to become? Do we want America to revert back to the 1960’s when groups were killed and segregated against for simply no good reason? Do we want to follow the ways of the Middle East and Al Queda? Let’s push forward, it’s time to end bigotry, discrimination, hate, and ignorance. This is modern America, not the Dark Ages.

Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.

The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.

The county had an easier time because the men were not considered married. To say the county could just as easily done this to a straight couple is not true if the couple were married. Not having legal marriage does make this sort of thing more likely for gay couples.

him wrote “The county had an easier time because the men were not considered married.”

And that’s the problem right there. That’s why we need to legalize gay marriage, so incidents like this can’t happen to gay’s and lesbians. Straight people have that choice to get married, these two men don’t in many places in this country.

You are right, but who are you trying to convince? This is a libertarian site. The only people here arguing against gay marriage are people who think the state should have nothing to do with marriage and a few right-wing lurkers.

Not so much convincing as trying to educate people on the subject of homosexuality. Ignorance is one of the biggest obstacles to gay marriage. Even for people who support it, they might be able to pick up a few facts here and there regarding homosexuality/gay marriage.

Jesus shadow_man, are you in the late stages of AIDS related dementia or what? If you could trouble yourself to have even the most rudimentary understanding of the people you’re addressing you would realize your bout of verbal incontinence was utterly pointless if not counter productive.

I don’t like facts? I don’t like meaningless facts and trivia spewed all over the thread without regard to the issues being discussed and views being expressed. All your posts were part of a conversation taking place solely in your head. Also, simply dumping links, quotes and other “facts” like some kind of monologue without a meaningful attempt to engage in an actual discussion is essentially just spamming the thread.

And, as someone who supports gay marriage* I can say you’re not doing your cause any favors with such behavior.

*Standard libertarian gay-marriage disclaimer: I don’t think the government has any business being involved in the most personal aspects of peoples lives, including marriage. If it is going to as it does, however, I don’t believe it should deny it to any consenting adults, gay, straight, or otherwise.

Facts are facts regardless if they are “meaningless” to you or not. Facts don’t have views. They are simply facts. My facts are relevant to the discussion because this article involves both homosexuality and gay marriage. Educating people to eliminate ignorance is never a bad thing.

And speaking of behavior, your response and most of the other name-calling in the forum exposes what most anti-gay people really are: hateful, discriminatory, and unjust.

Also, you act like you know what’s in every libertarians mind. Some may support gay marriage. Some may not. Some may support if for different reasons. Some may not support it for different reasons. It’s like saying every Republican is against gay marriage, or every Democrat supports gay marriage. That simply isn’t true, which btw, is another fact.

Yes I know what facts are. They are meaningless when they are not accompanied by a context or theory, then they’re just trivia. It is up to you to explain why the facts support your theory of something (whether it is a normative social theory or a positive physical theory). Simply dumping a bunch of links and long quotes that nobody is going to read and then having the condescending arrogance to say your just “educating” us only makes you look like a tool.

Linking to supposed “facts” (which are often just someone else’s argument) is lazy. If you have a point of view on an issue, make a fucking arugment and support it with some well-chosen, relevant and concise factual evidence. But, spare us the mountains of text and rambling unconnected “facts.”

So here’s some gratuitous advice (and because condescending arrogance is a two-way street): more thinking and less linking would do you a lot of good. And that’s a fact!

Actually, they are accompanied by context, since this article concerns homosexuality and gay marriage 🙂 I mean, if you are so against my links, then refute them, unless of course you are trying to troll, and failing miserably because a successful troll only wins when they incite anger ^^

just sayin’ wrote “If you have a point of view on an issue, make a fucking arugment and support it with some well-chosen, relevant and concise factual evidence. ”

LOL! Let’s see. I stated that homosexuality is not a choice, and i supported it with hard facts. It’s apparent you didn’t even read the posts 🙂

Ahh, and trying to make claims now too! Educating people with facts is not arrogance. I mean, if you are so against my facts, then prove them wrong. Merely whining about the truth being shown doesn’t do much for yourself. That’s a fact ^_^

All accounts of this story conspicuously leave out any mention of family. There were no doubt, on either or both sides, brothers, sisters, children, etc., some of whom may have only considered these 2 as ‘roommates’. Despite what some would like to think, this doesn’t happen w/o blood relatives being involved in some way.

Everyone seems to be missing the point ? This couple had thought they were doing everything in their power to protect each other under the law. Not only is the county legally wrong in this case but morally wrong. What an incomprehensively hateful act by any stretch ! Certainly seems to me that the remaining gentleman has a case and I for one would help pay his legal fees.

When there are 6, or 10, or 20 million Americans who literally have nothing left to lose, except for a life that no longer means anything to them, that’s when the fun will start. You can’t strip the last vestiges of humanity from people, and then act all surprised when they start acting like animals. Fire-bombs are cheap.

There have been a flurry of postings online that indicate an elderly couple was treated inhumanly by the County of Sonoma, but few people have questioned where this report came from, or whether there was another side to the story.

It appears that the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are trying to litigate this case through the internet? trying to spin the case as one of insensitivity towards people who are gay by County Staff. In fact, this case is really about domestic violence and the statutory obligation the County has to protect vulnerable individuals from abuse and harm.

The Sonoma County Public Guardian became involved in this matter as a result of a report from Harold Scull that Clay Greene had physically assaulted him, resulting in Mr. Scull’s hospitalization. Mr. Greene’s domestic violence against Mr. Scull has been independently verified during the course of litigation, including reports of witnesses who tended to Mr. Scull following his hospitalization.

The people involved have been vilified online. We are confident that the facts will show that the services received by Mr. Scull and Mr. Greene reflect the ongoing commitment to protect vulnerable citizens from harm and that no issues of discrimination were present

The heart of this case is protecting an elder victim of domestic violence. That’s why the Public Guardian’s Office took the actions it did. The County has a long history of taking a strong stand against domestic violence.

If you are interested in hearing another side to this story, I hope you will take a look at a NY Times story at: http://nyti.ms/bu8QDq. Or better yet, wait until the facts can be disclosed in trial.

Bottom line, Harold Scull needed 3 weeks hospitalization and later DIED after his partner allegedly assaulted him. Why are so many people doubting Sonoma County’s assertion that Scull blamed Greene for the fall and he did not want Greene visiting him in the hospital. Nobody but Clay and Harold knew what happened when Harold fell. For this reason there will never be criminal charges. But gay or straight, married or domestically partnered or roommates, lucid or senile, Harold Greene had a right not to be second guessed. We should give the benefit of the doubt to the more vulnerable party, not to the more persuasive.